The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. In the event that there was an agreement on price determination, etc. under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) and the implementation thereof, “the date on which the unfair collaborative act ends” is the date on which the execution based on the said agreement ends.

Therefore, in order to terminate unfair collaborative acts, some enterprisers who participated in the agreement should express or implied declaration of withdrawal from the agreement with other enterprisers, and reduce the price level that would have existed without collusion according to their independent judgment.

In addition, in order to ensure that an unfair collaborative act is terminated with respect to all enterprisers who participated in the agreement, there must be circumstances to deem that the enterprisers who participated in the agreement clearly reverse the agreement, and each enterpriser’s act contrary to the agreement, such as reducing the price that would have existed without collusion according to their own independent judgment, or that the act in which the enterprisers who participated in the agreement was actually reversed through repetitive price competition, etc., continues to exist

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37433, Nov. 23, 2017). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the evidence duly admitted, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) The Plaintiff is a subsidiary of H Group H Group, a German manufacturer, and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in the name of each company is omitted) is a subsidiary of I, a Japanese manufacturer, and they are importing C for the purpose of market sale from each head office to directly produce and supply it to the demand source.

E imports from K, a Japanese manufacturer of C, for the market, C for the market, and sells it to the demand source.

Plaintiff, D. D.